Author Topic: Revised CCW  (Read 15291 times)

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2016, 10:36:41 PM »
I'm also toying around with the thought of altering BIV in a more radical way (halving it, for instance).
That's doesn't actually add much new to the interaction between damage and Toughness. Because BIV divides damage to get injury, halving BIV is a lot like doubling damage (at least if there's no armour, and if you're playing with -5 AV or something, there often won't be), just with a paradoxically low chance of system shock from having a limb chopped off.

(I'm not sure there are a lot of references to power weapons cauterising. I have half a recollection that they might deliberately do it in some story somewhere, although one half of me says it's a Space Wolf story and another says it's an IG story, and I'm not actually sure it wasn't actually done with a plasma pistol, but it's not exactly something that happens every time).

With Rending, subtracting from the BIV is non-proportional maths, meaning that it works rather differently to just increasing damage. Similarly, Tearing messes with the statistics rather than necessarily being a straight damage boost.

Conversely, this is why most of the AP mechanics in the RIA divide armour. With armour being subtractive, dividing it makes AP work differently to adding damage. Compare this to Dark Heresy, where both Toughness and Armour subtract from damage, meaning that a weapon's penetration (which just reduces the AV by X amount) effectively just counts as extra points of damage up to a maximum of the target's AV.

And although it's yet to make it into a release version of the RIA, there's also Unnatural damage, which continues the tradition of messing with the mathematics of damage vs. toughness. It just deals injury levels directly, then does D6 to injury total for each level it does. (I prefer the latter part over the "minimum injury total required" mechanic that GW used a couple of times, as it means toughness does have some effect as far as consciousness and system shock).
That one's mostly intended for things that ignore physical law, such as wraithcannons, vortex grenades and other warp based weapons, although it has potential use for brutally powerful weapons.

Quote
Rending (1, 2, or d3?)
I know you've largely abandoned this idea, but I got various feedback about Rending(2) in the RIA that it could easily put locations past crippled on certain weapons. I don't now use it as a general effect (like, for example, the old Redshift muzzle for the lasguns) where the weapon has an unknown damage roll, and keep it only to specific cases - things like Frag weapons, where I know that it's balanced by doing only D10 damage.
Rending(3), which could happen with a D3, is something I've used only once so far.

Essentially, Rending is quite powerful, you need to be careful how much damage it gets stacked with. It's not unknown for unaugmented close combat weapons to do things like 2D6+5 damage (say, a great hammer being wielded by a S80 character, fairly feasible with bionics), which is a lot alongside the possibility of Rending(3).

Even if not for the possible brutality of Rending(3), using a D3 would just mean extra rolls and more maths every hit. It's not really necessary when damage is already randomised.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:40:13 PM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Alyster Wick

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Talk is cheap, let's scan.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2016, 05:30:26 PM »
Okay, so I'm going to stick w/ shock weapons doing an extra d6 or d10 w/ the stun effects modified for limbs (the limb is "crippled" for d3 turns), and I'll give them a further -10% parry penalty (seems appropriate, right?). I'm also sticking w/ Chain weapons being +1 damage dice, dealing tearing damage, w/ a 50% chance to cause bleeding, and the parry penalty increased.

That leaves monomolecular blades and power weapons. I've done a lot of thinking and this is what I came up w/ for each:

Monomolecular Blades:
Monomolecular Blades do Light AP damage and add +2 to the weapon’s damage.
Additional Rules
Master Crafted: The wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus.
Eldar Crafted (I'm considering expanding this for other weapons): The blade does Rending (1) damage. Additionally, the wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus.

Power Weapons: A weapon that receives the power weapon upgrade will up their damage die from d6 to d10 or from d10 to 2d6. Additionally the rules for Grievous Damage* and ignores first 5 points of armor. Finally, a power weapon has a 25% to 75% chance of destroying the opposing players weapon (based on the quality of the blade) and incurs an additional -5% parry penalty.
Additional Rules
Master Crafted : You may add an additional d6, d10, or 2d6 damage to the weapon, based on quality (ranging from a contemporary craftsmen to an ancient legacy blade forged in the dark age of technology). There is no additional parry penalty for a Master Crafted Power Sword
*Grievous Damage: The damage dealt by this weapon or psychic power cannot be healed by conventional means. You may not recover points to your injury total during the recovery phase of the game and injury levels may not be recovered if they were lost due to grievous damage. Injury level or injury total may only be recovered in-game at GMs discretion. For bookkeeping purposes it is suggested that you note the characters new maximum health total next to their Consciousness level and that you completely black out injury levels inflicted due to Grievous Damage.

___________________________________________

To give an idea how this works in game, here are some profiles:

Sword (mundane): Reach 3, Damage 2d6, PP: -10%

Shock Sword (I'm not sure a shock sword should exist, but I'm including it as a point of comparison. if Shock Swords do exist in fluff let me know, I could be totally wrong here): Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -15%, Cannot be destroyed by Power Weapons, Stuns (per description above)

Chainsword: Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -25%, Tearing 1, 50% causes bleeding, audible 35 meters away

Monomolecular Sword:
Reach 3, Damage 2d6+2, PP: -10%, Light AP

Eldar Monomolecular Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d6+2, PP: -10%, Light AP, Rending (1), Damage bonus calculated using WS

Power Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d10, PP: -15%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 25% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Master Crafted Power Sword:
Reach 3, Damage 3d10, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 50% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Dark Age Power Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d10+2d6, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 75% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Eldar Power Sword (super experimental): Reach 3, Damage 2d10, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 50% chance to destroy parrying weapon, Rending (1), Damage bonus based on WS rather than S

Eldar Chainsword (super experimental):
Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -25%, Rending (1) damage, Tearing (1) damage, the wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus

___________________________________

So I'm definitely at the point where I can start play testing these rules, but what is written above w/ the various sword rules shows in a concrete way what I was hoping to achieve, which is to have these special kinds of weapons be straight variations off of their mundane versions. Thoughts? I'm hoping to do a real game with these complete w/ a write up between now and Easter. The big question is, are these rules you'd be comfortable playing with if someone showed up to an open game? Are they fair, reflective of the fluff, and fun?

Raghnall

  • Guest
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2016, 07:11:15 PM »
Shock Sword (I'm not sure a shock sword should exist, but I'm including it as a point of comparison. if Shock Swords do exist in fluff let me know, I could be totally wrong here): Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -15%, Cannot be destroyed by Power Weapons, Stuns (per description above)
In my opinion, shock swords should exist, in order to provide a mid-point between regular melee weapons and power weapons, which is more elegant than a chain weapon. It stands to reason that if you can fit a shock generator to a metal stick, you can stick one to a sharpened metal stick. Of course, what I think doesn't actually matter, as Dark Heresy gives us a wide variety of different shock weapons, including the officer's cutlass.

"The officer’s cutlass is a standard variation on the basic cutlass sword and it sees use in almost every vessel in the sector. In close-quarters fighting, the heavy metal guard is often used as an offensive weapon in its own right as the armoured shell can provide a powerful punch. Many ship’s officers and ratings heighten this effect by incorporating a shock generator in the guard, so that, when hit, an opponent is felled by both the electrical shock as well as the solid impact. Chartist captains and other higher rankings use even more lethal versions, strengthening their blades with power fields." -page 162, Inquisitor's Handbook.

The stats for a shock sword seem about right, and really appropriate for the role that I see weapons-grade shock weapons as filling, although perhaps there should be rules for striking with the flat of the blade/electrified guard/hilt, or generally using it in a less lethal manner, in a more traditional shock weapon style.

So I'm definitely at the point where I can start play testing these rules, but what is written above w/ the various sword rules shows in a concrete way what I was hoping to achieve, which is to have these special kinds of weapons be straight variations off of their mundane versions. Thoughts? I'm hoping to do a real game with these complete w/ a write up between now and Easter. The big question is, are these rules you'd be comfortable playing with if someone showed up to an open game? Are they fair, reflective of the fluff, and fun?

The whole concept rather reminds me of the rules Charax and Heist wrote, which were fun. Currently, I feel that close combat weapons are seriously lacking variety, and barring a Marco-style armoury*, this is probably the best solution. Since most of the special rules are taken from the RIA, it adds little extra complexity, in return for massive customisability, and I fully support the project. On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.

*While the RIA is fantastic, and incredibly useful, I don't think there is anyone with the same combination of dedication and insanity that Marco must clearly possess to have written it, and by his own admission, even he lacks the knowledge to do a melee equivalent justice.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2016, 12:42:33 AM »
w/ the stun effects modified for limbs (the limb is "crippled" for d3 turns)
I'd have to play-test that to know exactly how that would work out. My instinct says that could be nastier than the already fairly dramatic effect a shock weapon can have - losing the use of an arm for D3 turns may mean not being able to attack or defend for three turns, but being stunned will often mean just not attacking for one (as there's a fair chance your opponent has run out of attacks with which to exploit your stunned status).

Perhaps if it were D3-1 turns, with a 0 applying it only as an immediate effect (so you go prone or drop your weapon, but can act as normal after that), that might balance up a little better.

Quote
I'm also sticking w/ Chain weapons being +1 damage dice, dealing tearing damage, w/ a 50% chance to cause bleeding, and the parry penalty increased.
I'm still not necessarily convinced by the additional bleeding effects in terms of bookkeeping, but I can see the argument for it.

My inclination would be to provide a somewhat smaller initial increase in damage though. The 3D6 Tearing of your chainsword would average out at 12.24 damage, which is more than they currently average (11 damage) even before the possibility of blood loss is considered.

Quote
*Grievous Damage: The damage dealt by this weapon or psychic power cannot be healed by conventional means. You may not recover points to your injury total during the recovery phase of the game and injury levels may not be recovered if they were lost due to grievous damage. Injury level or injury total may only be recovered in-game at GMs discretion. For bookkeeping purposes it is suggested that you note the characters new maximum health total next to their Consciousness level and that you completely black out injury levels inflicted due to Grievous Damage.
This is seriously powerful (taking 2D10 damage to your injury total is nasty enough, but making it unrecoverable?), requires a lot of extra book-keeping and I'm not sure I can justify a power weapon dealing more permanent damage than, say, a plasma gun. Yes, it might just lop a limb clean off... but a regular sword can do that, and something like a meltagun would actually reduce much of that limb to expanding vapour. (But, even so, there is going to be the potential to staunch any bleeding, inject morphia, etc.)

It is an interesting rule, but is probably better kept as flavour for oddities like the Gauss Flayer, rather than being applied to something as comparatively "common" as a power sword.

The rest of it though, with a power sword doing 2D10 Damage, Pen 5 (to use the DH parlance)... that sounds like it's in the right ballpark to me and manages to make itself more interesting than the LRB's rules.

On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.
I currently use "Fielded", representing that the weapon either naturally generates an energy field that counters power weapons, or has been modified (due to value, rarity, heirloomishness* or the like) with energy fields to avoid the risk of it being damaged.
*Probably not actually a word.

But "Indestructible" might be better. It's certainly more self-explanatory.

Quote
*While the RIA is fantastic, and incredibly useful, I don't think there is anyone with the same combination of dedication and insanity that Marco must clearly possess to have written it, and by his own admission, even he lacks the knowledge to do a melee equivalent justice.
Another reason I've not moved in on melee weapons is that there's less room to work in.

By default, melee weapons get three characteristics (one of which has only five possible values), whereas there's ten for ranged weapons (although most only use seven, with Acc, Area and Blast often not used). Even without bringing a single special rule into it, the characteristics for guns are enough to distinguish between a Browning Hi-Power and a Colt M1911, but there's a lot less room to differentiate a katana and a sabre - despite the two swords being much more different in their combat roles than the two pistols.

If you wanted to do a melee armoury of the same scope as the RIA, it'd require a hefty re-engineering of the close combat rules... which isn't necessarily a place that's a good idea to be complicating.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Alyster Wick

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Talk is cheap, let's scan.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2016, 09:53:11 PM »
Thanks for confirming the existence of shock swords Rhagnall, that makes sense to me. It also is causing some ideas for additional "upgrades" that could be given to weapons (such as a Guard). I've been considering adding additional CC rules including an "up close" fighting distance option. It would involve characters moving into base-to-base contact and would favor weapons with a shorter reach (reach bonuses would flip, with 0 or 1 being the best and anything beyond that working like an improvised weapon with negative bonuses the longer it is). In this circumstance, a sword with a guard on it could be used as an armored gauntlet when up close (or it would allow you to have an armored gauntlet for one round after your weapon is destroyed by a power weapon). I was playing around with the idea of a weapon with a guard dropping to a 0 Parry Penalty as long as the counter-attack was carried out by the armored gauntlet/brass knuckles. Anyway, that's a rant and isn't completely relevant. Do other folks have ideas for "Weapon Upgrades" in the mold of a guard?

Quote
On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.

I'm considering Invulnerable. It's close to Marco's suggestion of Indestructible but I like how it's a call back to Invulnerable saves from 40K. It also is general enough that it's feels appropriate for a Daemon Weapon that wouldn't necessarily have an energy field around it.


Quote
*Grievous Damage
This is seriously powerful (taking 2D10 damage to your injury total is nasty enough, but making it unrecoverable?), requires a lot of extra book-keeping and I'm not sure I can justify a power weapon dealing more permanent damage than, say, a plasma gun.


I'm taking all your advice into advisement but wanted to focus on this. The bookkeeping doesn't seem that excessive to me (you basically just drop their max Health) but it is something that could easily be forgotten, and it could be potentially quite powerful. As of right now I'll drop those rules for Power Weapons (though I may keep the concept for C'Tan Phase Swords or something, more on that later).

What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max? I go back and forth on this. It's nice because it shows that these weapons are incredibly dangerous no matter how tough a character is. On the other hand, it offers no additional bonuses for characters w/ BIV 5 and lower (though I suppose a character lower than 5 BIV getting hit w/ a power weapon is bad enough already). Any adjustments to compensate for that basically bring us back to rending.

I may just playtest the 5 BIV cap and see what happens.

NEXT UP:

There are 4 remaining parts of this project I definitely want to take on with a possible 5th that's more CC than CCW (as foreshadowed above). They are:

- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.

- Weapons of the 41st Millennia: Making rules for the most notorious unique weapons in the 40K universe that don't have a mundane counter-part or are unique enough to not be a straight upgrade. These include: Power Fist, Thunder Hammer, Eviscerator, C'Tan Phase Sword, Harlequin Kiss, possibly some more obscure Eldar/Dark Eldar weapons (husk blade, punisher, agonizer, etc). What other iconic weapons am I missing?

- Additional Upgrades: As mentioned above, what items could be added to weapons to further customize them (in the style of a guard)? I'd need to do more research here but I'd be interested in getting more ideas. What other upgrades can people think of?

- Additional Mundane Weapons: This includes Batons, Bigger Swords/different kinds of swords, perhaps more polearms, etc. With some more dice combos freed up I'd like to make some modest additions to the list of mundane weapons to add a little more variety.

The fifth and final part of this would be a combination of minor tweaks to Close Combat and the addition of the Up Close combat distance. Part of the thinking behind "up close" would be to give characters with a high WS more options/a fighting chance if they have no weapons. They could close the gap and put a better armed enemy at a disadvantage by moving inside their guard. I'd probably heavily borrow from the mechanics used when moving between arm's length and standard combat distance. This is a bit more of a flight of fancy, but I think that adding these rules would open up some possibilities with reach 0-1 weapons that have not really had a chance to shine.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2016, 01:01:20 AM »
I'm considering Invulnerable.
It's not necessarily a major problem, but Invulnerable is already one of the Daemonic exotic abilities. 

Quote
What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max?
By that point, you're starting to get into the realm of Unnatural damage from the RIA drafts (I explain more fully in the post at the top of the page)

Most armour will be reduced to 0 and most characters will end up with BIV 5, so you will generally in effect just be rolling injury levels directly - which I think works in the context of "This weapon ignores reality", but that's not quite what power weapons are in my mind. To me, a disruption field weakens molecular bonds, effectively multiplying the force of the swing, but I don't think the material qualities become completely irrelevant.

~~~~~

Although, that would be interesting from a materials science viewpoint. Such things do happen at hypervelocity - at velocities exceeding the speed of sound within the material, the impactor is outrunning the propagation of forces. This means that the molecular bonds are torn one by one rather than being able to act in unison - the effect is like tearing through a phone book a page at a time, rather than trying to tear all the pages at once.

At these velocities, material strength becomes irrelevant. Even things like steel or titanium act like a liquid, with only density and momentum still playing a significant part:



If disruption fields did entirely negate material strength, that's more or less the kind of dent you'd see if you swung a power hammer into an anvil - iron, splashing like water. Interesting, but not really what I envision.


Quote
- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.
That could be interesting, but I think it might be hard to make them feel different to daemon weapons. You don't want them to just feel like daemon weapons but without the risk of being possessed.

Quote
the addition of the Up Close combat distance.
As opposed to the official Up Close rules from the errata? I don't exactly like the current combat rules (which is why they're one of the main focuses on my Revised edition project), but the current Up Close rules actually work reasonably well in limiting the supremacy high reach weapons had in the original rules.

They can sometimes call for GM moderation, as I discovered when Sgt Kronen moved up close, circled while priming a krak grenade, then attached it to her opponent's back... which, rules as written, would have led to her hitting on 93 and her opponent dodging on -36. Even after GM's intervention though, she hit, making for one of the most brutal melee attacks I've ever seen in game*.
But that's more of an inherent problem with things like the double-jeopardy reach modifiers where they apply to both attacking and defending. I'm working on that kind of thing for the Revised project. Hopefully, my thoughts on reach modifiers will make engagement distances more fluid.

*Orla Riall once critted Sgt Gillmore in the groin with a Sollex Energy blade, but I think my favourite is the fate of the massive mutie NPC who leapt off a building at Van Helser's Rogue Trader (whose name I've completely forgotten, sorry). Ruaridh had seemed so chagrined at having rolled only one action, but had then managed to do so much damage with a critical chainsword hit that I ruled that the swing had been so perfectly timed with the beast's leap that it had completely bisected the brute under its own momentum.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Cortez

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2016, 10:54:16 AM »
Quote
- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.

I don't think giving force weapons lots of special rules like daemon swords really fits what they are and I already think the wp test for extra damage makes them feel special and different to regular swords/staffs etc.. You could give them a simple extra effect based on the psychers primary attribute though e.g. a pyrokinetic could cause bonus flaming damage, a telekinetic could have a knockback effect, a telepath could cause psychic head trauma (maybe with an opposed wp test to prevent it being too powerful, I'm not sure what you'd do for biomancy, daemonology or the more exotic chaos powers though.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2016, 01:20:59 PM »
That actually sounds like a quite good way of doing it - making the effect dependent on the user rather than the weapon might not necessarily make a huge difference to the game play (it's fairly rare for characters to end up using each others' weapons), but definitely seems more appropriate.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Raghnall

  • Guest
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2016, 09:52:12 PM »
Force Weapons are arguably the most personal weapons in the game, and although I oppose making them into risk-free daemon weapons, Psykers should be able to channel their powers through a force blade in a variety of different ways relevant to their skill set, not just doing extra damage.

Offline Alyster Wick

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Talk is cheap, let's scan.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2016, 01:23:57 AM »
I don't think giving force weapons lots of special rules like daemon swords really fits what they are and I already think the wp test for extra damage makes them feel special and different to regular swords/staffs etc.. You could give them a simple extra effect based on the psychers primary attribute though e.g. a pyrokinetic could cause bonus flaming damage, a telekinetic could have a knockback effect, a telepath could cause psychic head trauma (maybe with an opposed wp test to prevent it being too powerful, I'm not sure what you'd do for biomancy, daemonology or the more exotic chaos powers though.

Force Weapons are arguably the most personal weapons in the game, and although I oppose making them into risk-free daemon weapons, Psykers should be able to channel their powers through a force blade in a variety of different ways relevant to their skill set, not just doing extra damage.

My response to both of these really weaves together. Cortez, the effects you through out there (catching things on fire, extra knock back, etc) are almost all what I had in my draft so far in terms of "additional effects". That said, I had not thought of linking the effects to the nature of the character's power, which is brilliant. In terms of your thoughts Raghnall, I absolutely agree. The intent is definitely not to make risk free daemon weapons, but rather to give a bit more character to force weapons.

I'm thinking that they'll function pretty similar to how they do now (with a damage bonus assigned if they're successful) but that an additional power will manifest on a double roll (so 55, 66, 77, etc). I don't know if that's too rare, I'd consider making the chance increase if the character "pushes" their power (per the RIPPA) but with an increased chance of bad things happening. I have to think more about potential negative effects from failing the test, as I'm not sure I want force weapons to function just like psychic powers, but if there are more upsides (or more interesting upsides) then it makes sense to give some downsides too.

For now I'm thinking effects would be along the lines of:

Pyromancy: Sets opponent on fire
Telekinetic: Massive knockback
Telepathic: Opposing character may not counter-attack, or possibly a free additional attack
Daemonology: Double Damage against Daemons/sets psykers on fire (or some such thing)
Biomancy: Rending (1) (or would d3 be more interesting?)

I'm not sure I want to tackle how Chaotic abilities work w/ Force Weapons (at least not at the moment). Is there precedent for chaos worshipers using force weapons? I've always thought of them more as "holy weapons" and not something the chaos powers would use. I'll do some research...

Quote
What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max?

Most armour will be reduced to 0 and most characters will end up with BIV 5, so you will generally in effect just be rolling injury levels directly - which I think works in the context of "This weapon ignores reality", but that's not quite what power weapons are in my mind. To me, a disruption field weakens molecular bonds, effectively multiplying the force of the swing, but I don't think the material qualities become completely irrelevant.

Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most. That way it'll make really tough targets less tough without lopping through average-toughness characters too easily. I think this may be the sweet spot I was looking for. That way it won't render super tough enemies completely useless, but will soften them up a bit.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2016, 02:20:42 AM »
I'm thinking that they'll function pretty similar to how they do now (with a damage bonus assigned if they're successful) but that an additional power will manifest on a double roll (so 55, 66, 77, etc). I don't know if that's too rare
I think one hit in ten would be somewhat underwhelming, from experience of just how often I don't manage to roll critical hits, although it may depend on the power of the bonuses and the damage that's already being caused.

Quote
Pyromancy: Sets opponent on fire
Telekinetic: Massive knockback
Telepathic: Opposing character may not counter-attack, or possibly a free additional attack
Daemonology: Double Damage against Daemons/sets psykers on fire (or some such thing)
Biomancy: Rending (1) (or would d3 be more interesting?)
Pyrokinesis: Makes sense.

Telekinesis: Makes sense.

Telepathy: Your opponent can't be counter-attacking, as he's already failed his parry roll if you're rolling damage against him, and I'm not necessarily sure how I'd justify a free attack. I'd instead consider some kind of "Mind War", where extra injury total is dealt if the victim fails a Wp test.

Daemonology: Force weapons currently already do double damage to daemons, to represent them dealing both physical and psychic damage. I wouldn't necessarily say it would be a bad thing for that to be toned down, but I'd like to see something to that effect stay (although you probably don't want to be stacking extra multipliers on top).
Rather than playing with the daemon side of things (which wouldn't often come into play in game), how about the "warping space and time" aspect? This might be a more appropriate place for the free attack (or action) you suggested for Telepathy.

Biomancy: I wouldn't ever personally randomise Rending. Damage is already random, and throwing in random Rending increases that exponentially. Sometimes you'll roll 5 damage and Rending(1), then sometimes it'll be 16 damage and Rending (3), which is the bad kind of unpredictable.
(I originally thought up Rending as a solution to a similar kind of thing. I used it to replace the Galthite Lacerator's multiple hit rules, after an incident involving such a weapon rolling three hits and a crit at the same time, and thus doing about 80 damage in one strike).

If you're doing it, I'd recommend a fixed Rending value.

Quote
Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most. That way it'll make really tough targets less tough without lopping through average-toughness characters too easily. I think this may be the sweet spot I was looking for. That way it won't render super tough enemies completely useless, but will soften them up a bit.
That's likely to have much the same effect, given it's rare for characters to be BIV 8 or more.

While I am making such a tweak to Rending in the next version of the RIA, it's toned down a bit more. Currently, Rending caps the minimum modified BIV at 2, but the next version will cap it at 3 to balance Rending(3) slightly better.

S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Alyster Wick

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Talk is cheap, let's scan.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2016, 01:06:01 AM »
I think one hit in ten would be somewhat underwhelming, from experience of just how often I don't manage to roll critical hits, although it may depend on the power of the bonuses and the damage that's already being caused.

Yeah, I think part of the problem is the varied level of effects. Lighting someone on fire, knocking them back extra far, or getting an extra attack could all be pretty solid 1 in 10 effects, but rending may be a bit underwhelming. That said, if they're paired with a damage bonus for just generally passing the WP test it could be pretty solid. That way there's a regular bonus (let's say +d6) and then there's that extra special bonus that only comes occasionally.

One additional though: Every psycher could have a "bonus threshold" of X% of the success rate, w/ X being Psy Rating times 10. So a character with 72 WP and a Psy Rating of 1 would need to roll 7 or lower to manifest (low chance) but a WP 81 character with a Psy Rating of 3 would only have to roll 24 to manifest (1 in 4). That sounds like a cumbersome amount of math, but remember that this bonus threshold is a fixed value. 

Telepathy: Your opponent can't be counter-attacking, as he's already failed his parry roll if you're rolling damage against him, and I'm not necessarily sure how I'd justify a free attack. I'd instead consider some kind of "Mind War", where extra injury total is dealt if the victim fails a Wp test.

Mind War could work (say an additional d6 to the head, ignoring armor? May be too powerful for an additional CC effect though, could possibly add a difficulty modifier).

Daemonology: ... Rather than playing with the daemon side of things (which wouldn't often come into play in game), how about the "warping space and time" aspect? This might be a more appropriate place for the free attack (or action) you suggested for Telepathy.

Makes sense to me, I may stick w/ the extra attack option. I posted without fully rereading the rules. As often happens, I get an idea while posting and instead of thinking it all the way through I just throw it out before it's really ready for prime time.

Biomancy: I wouldn't ever personally randomise Rending.

Rending (1) it is. The alternative would be to add a strength bonus (say 50%?) but I much prefer the idea that the psyker weakens the flesh of their opponent in an eerie and Cronenbergian way :)

Quote
Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most.
That's likely to have much the same effect, given it's rare for characters to be BIV 8 or more

So I'll argue the point that while it is "much the same effect" that it's in the exceptions where the importance really lies. My previous proposal would have treated an LRB style marine the same as an extremely tough guardsmen. The Rending (2) w/ a cap of 4 or 5 allows for super-tough characters (Chaos Spawn, larger beasts, someone taking really powerful combat drugs) to not be nerfed in an inappropriate way by a power weapon. I think I found my sweet spot of compromise here. If there are other ideas I'm totally open, but this rules set for Power Weapons captures what I set out to achieve. Others are free to use the rules (or not) as they see fit. As a disclaimer, if playtesting reveals that the weapon is just too powerful I may change them back, but it's at least worth a try.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2016, 02:09:31 AM »
That sounds like a cumbersome amount of math, but remember that this bonus threshold is a fixed value.
Not necessarily, as a character's WP can change (and, if I recall, there were effects that could change a character's Psy Rating). It might be easier to run with the Critical mechanics I introduced in the Revised edition.

Quote
Mind War could work (say an additional d6 to the head, ignoring armor?
That might be a bit mean, yes, even if the opponent gets a Wp test.

Quote
The Rending (2) w/ a cap of 4 or 5 allows for super-tough characters (Chaos Spawn, larger beasts, someone taking really powerful combat drugs) to not be nerfed in an inappropriate way by a power weapon.
Whether it's 4 or 5 will make a fairly big difference.

With a cap of BIV 5, there's very few of my characters who wouldn't end up as BIV 5. (A couple have BIV 8, and I think I have one or two with BIV 4).

With a cap of BIV 4... I'd have to run some playtests, but that's not really limiting the impact of Rending much considering the high damage and Penetration involved. I recall the Redshift lasgun muzzle in the RIA, which I downgraded to Rending(1) because of various feedback about the combination of Rending(2) with Damage like 3D6+something (and that has a penalty against armour!)

S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Alyster Wick

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Talk is cheap, let's scan.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2016, 12:58:11 PM »
Okay, so my current thoughts on Force Weapons are to perhaps try a different route, one in which opting to channel your discipline through the attack is essentially using a psychic power (with variable difficulties based on the power) at the moment of the strike. This may not sound too far off what happens currently but there would be some differences in that it would allow for some quite powerful abilities to be used alongside an appropriate modifier. Plus in this circumstance the power would/could potentially replace the extra damage (or maybe the extra damage always manifests as +1 per full 10 the WP test is passed by, meaning that higher difficulty powers automatically serve as a check to increased damage?).

Honestly that's more to close out (temporarily) my ranting on Force Weapons. What I really wanted to post about is that I'm working on a new weapons list for basic close combat weapons. Right now I have 52 basic weapons listed (an improvement on the 16 listed in the LRB) and I'm going to work on drafting rules over the next number of days.

To give a taste of what I'm thinking, I am going to give a run at adding "Attack Penalty" as a field in addition to "Parry Penalty". This is going to be 0 for a decent amount of weapons (after all, what's the point of even having a WS if it's always modified?) but it will come into play with heavier weapons.

I'm also attempting to add some differentiation with variable reach weapons. For instance, Enforcer Batons (like modern police batons), chains, and sais. Batons and sais can be swung for reach two or the grip modified for reach 1 (or zero, I'm playing around with that idea), while a chain can be swung for reach 3 or wrapped around the fist for reach zero.

I'm also tweaking Parry Penalties rudimentarily based on how many blades/heads a weapon has. For instance, a Gladius vs. a Machete, the gladius will have the better PP because it is double bladed and (presumably) puts you in a better position to counter-attack regardless of where your blade ends up after fending off a blow versus the single blade on a machete. Same principle with a hatchet versus a double-headed hand axe. 

Let me be very clear at this point: I am no weapons expert. If there are any out there, feel free to poke holes in my thinking. However, be warned that even if you do I will likely forge on as I think we all deserve a wider range of close combat weapons than we currently have (in the absence of production suggestions).

I'm also looking to utilize d3 systems more. Particularly I'm thinking of relying more heavily on d3s for "stabby" weapons (Rapier, Ice Pick) as a way to slightly lift the minimum damage while limiting the maximum. For instance, a Rapier may do 3d3 as opposed to a standard sword's 2d6 (my goal is to have "real" names for all swords, but I've yet find one that satisfies the need for a regular old sword, though I'm open to suggestion). My thinking here is that there would be fewer grazes or near misses with the stabby weapons, but you're never really going to hack something off. Again, I'm not a weapons expert, I am concerned with finding a line of logic and sticking with it though.

The last thought I have (and I'd like some feedback on this) is to possibly introduce Maximum and Minimum damage values. These would not be standard values with their own columns (as most weapons wouldn't have a Max or Min) but would be in the special rules section when relevant. My thinking is that they open up a new and intriguing route for variation. Specifically, I was doing the mental math on d10 versus 2d6 versus 2d6 (Max: 10). 2d6 (Max:10) is an interesting alternative choice to a standard d10, giving it a 7 in 12 chance to do 7+ damage as opposed to a 1 in 2 chance at 6+ for a standard d10. Sure, one could argue 2d6 is only a slight improvement (with an additional 1 in 12 shot to do 11+ damage) but it's still significant. I like the Min/Max idea as it allows for some interesting statistical scenarios where you're able to replicate the Maximum value of a different dice role (the d10 example above) while really changing the odds of which numbers will occur.

I'm not married to the idea of the Max/Mins, but the idea just struck me and it intrigues me. With all of the new weapon types I plotted out I'm also looking for avenues of differentiation, and this seemed like a good one to me.

Any thoughts? I'm hoping to be able to post a sample table in the next week or so. I'm also thinking of adding in a caveat that the table it intended to be used with your revised Reach system Marco (as I think that makes things much more interesting with the Optimal Reach system). This will also be dependent on the mechanic involving the exact inches between players mattering, so I'm potentially putting the cart a little bit before the horse here. Probably should have said that up front.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Revised CCW
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2016, 05:26:34 PM »
This is going to be 0 for a decent amount of weapons (after all, what's the point of even having a WS if it's always modified?)
Ideally, I'd agree. However, having the limits of trying to work (as far as possible) within the existing system means I think it's either going to have to be otherwise for IRE or I introduce bonuses for parrying; I do want the opposed mechanic (which is used quite extensively throughout IRE), but it does need something to balance it.

For an unopposed system like 1st edition though, yeah.

Quote
I'm also looking to utilize d3 systems more. Particularly I'm thinking of relying more heavily on d3s for "stabby" weapons (Rapier, Ice Pick) as a way to slightly lift the minimum damage while limiting the maximum. For instance, a Rapier may do 3d3 as opposed to a standard sword's 2d6 (my goal is to have "real" names for all swords, but I've yet find one that satisfies the need for a regular old sword, though I'm open to suggestion)
I haven't been using D3s that much in my drafts for the IRE armoury, but that's an interesting thought.

I'm currently using the Arming sword (often called the Knightly sword, but that name seems less suitable, given that "Knight" means other things in 40k)) as the "basic" sword in my notes. It's a fairly classic European one-handed mediaeval sword, and avoids being too visibly associated with any particular country.

Quote
The last thought I have (and I'd like some feedback on this) is to possibly introduce Maximum and Minimum damage values.
By Only War, the 40kRP system had something like that in the Primitive and Proven characteristics. Primitive (7) means that any single die that rolls over 7 is treated as 7 (although can still trigger Righteous Fury on a natural 10). Proven (3) is the reverse. Any single die under 3 is treated as 3.

I had considered adopting the idea for parts of the RIA, but with Inquisitor not being built on solely D10s (and their D5 derivatives) and the fact I already have Rending, Trivial, Tearing* (and, at one point, "Anti-Tearing" is used) to play with, I've already got a lot of control over the statistics, so I thought it would just be too much more complexity.

*Which was originally borrowed from 40kRP of course, but extending it to the Tearing(X) concept adds options.

Quote
This will also be dependent on the mechanic involving the exact inches between players mattering, so I'm potentially putting the cart a little bit before the horse here.
Well, we'll see where that goes when I've got a draft, but I'll no doubt be adjusting things a few times based on feedback before we're done.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles